People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you were watching the debate we were all wrong about the calculations.

If you believe that you’ll believe anything!

SF and Mary Lou got caught out big time on this.

They realised they messed up and have obviously been scrambling to figure out how to fix this bs manifesto promise ... might fool the weak of mind but it’s so transparent.

Whelo79

markodaly wrote: »

Its like they want to brush it under the carpet.

So, we all come to the conclusion that SF are wrong about their cheap 65k houses then?

ML clarified it's €6.5Bn on top of the €6.5Bn already being spent so that equates to aprx €130,000 per house.

blanch152

Trizo wrote: »

If you believe that you’ll believe anything!

SF and Mary Lou got caught out big time on this.

They realised they messed up and have obviously been scrambling to figure out how to fix this bs manifesto promise ... might fool the weak of mind but it’s so transparent.

Not the only ones, FF struggling on their SSIA for the rich and Leo's dismantling of it.

blanch152

Whelo79 wrote: »

ML clarified it's €6.5Bn on top of the €6.5Bn already being spent so that equates to aprx €130,000 per house.

Still not enough. Also that second €6.5 bn doesn't appear in their numbers. Very very poor.

blanch152 wrote: »

Still not enough. Also that second €6.5 bn doesn't appear in their numbers. Very very poor.

SF prob would have been better off just sticking with their claim, would have blown over and people would have moved on.

Changing their manifesto now just makes their error all the more obvious.

Trizo wrote: »

If you believe that you’ll believe anything!

SF and Mary Lou got caught out big time on this.

They realised they messed up and have obviously been scrambling to figure out how to fix this bs manifesto promise ... might fool the weak of mind but it’s so transparent.

Here's the line from the manifesto. I should have read the thing instead of leaving it to the guys around here.

Sinn Féin’s public housing programme would:
» Deliver on average 20,000 public homes each year to meet social and affordable
need by investing an additional €6.5 billion

*I underlined 'additional' btw.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's the line from the manifesto. I should have read the thing instead of leaving it to the guys around here.

*I underlined 'additional' btw.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Page 5 of SF manifesto -

Build 100,000 homes over 5 years. This will include council housing and affordable homes for renters and first time buyers. Cost - €6.5bn

...., yeah they can try and spin it all they want not fooled. Had SF meant in addition to the FG amount Mary Lou would have said so at the first debate. It’s taken them a few days to come up with this.

Trizo wrote: »

Page 5 of SF manifesto -

Build 100,000 homes over 5 years. This will include council housing and affordable homes for renters and first time buyers. Cost - €6.5bn

...., yeah they can try and spin it all they want not fooled. Had SF meant in addition to the FG amount Mary Lou would have said so at the first debate. It’s taken them a few days to come up with this.

Did you read the whole page or just pluck that sentence out of it?

If you read the whole page it says 'what Sinn Fein will do...' on top of what is already allocated I presume.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you read the whole page or just pluck that sentence out of it?

If you read the whole page it says 'what Sinn Fein will do...' on top of what is already allocated I presume.

Iv read the manifesto and listened to SF party members .. they got it wrong , they would have been better off just holding their hands up and admitting it like Leo did with the RIC commemoration would have shut down the controversy straight away.

Even if you were to believe their new claim ðŸ˜‚ an additional 6.5B means houses for 130k ... still not enough, like I said no matter which way you spin it the claim is BS.

HoggyRS

Gynoid wrote: »

Jean McConville.

Youre stretching if you think the death of a british army informant 40 odd years ago is a pertinent issue for 99% of voters in the south.

Trizo wrote: »

Iv read the manifesto and listened to SF party members .. they got it wrong , they would have been better off just holding their hands up and admitting it like Leo did with the RIC commemoration would have shut down the controversy straight away.

Even if you were to believe their new claim &#55357;&#56834; an additional 6.5B means houses for 130k ... still not enough, like I said no matter which way you spin it the claim is BS.

Admitting what though? Are you saying the word additional has been added since?

I didn't read it as I never read manifestos, they are all puff pieces imo and as Yates says the Dept Of Finance has issues with all of them except Labours.

Are you saying they changed it? If so have you a copy of the original?

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's the line from the manifesto. I should have read the thing instead of leaving it to the guys around here.

*I underlined 'additional' btw.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Ah thanks. Should know better than taking FG'ers at their word. Any mention of unicorns and rainbows?

piplip87

Jaysus attacking victims of the troubles again I see

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/latest-news/sinn-fein-chat-group-called-ira-victims-wasters-with-sob-stories-1-8686265/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Not a normal party

Fann Linn

piplip87 wrote: »

Jaysus attacking victims of the troubles again I see

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/latest-news/sinn-fein-chat-group-called-ira-victims-wasters-with-sob-stories-1-8686265/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Not a normal party

Trawling through the archives. Two year old newspaper reports, why not go back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Admitting what though? Are you saying the word additional has been added since?

I didn't read it as I never read manifestos, they are all puff pieces imo and as Yates says the Dept Of Finance has issues with all of them except Labours.

Are you saying they changed it? If so have you a copy of the original?

It’s very specific. It’s an additional €6.5 billion to deliver over 100,00 public homes on public land. That’s the money budgeted to build the 100,000 homes unless the entirety of the existing housing budget and all it is used for is going to be diverted into building the “over 100,000 homes”.

[Deleted User]

I'm in Mary Lou's area, had someone from sinn fein at my door today.
She hadn't a clue about any of the manifesto. Had no idea exactly what they would do or what they were proposing!
They wouldn't get my vote anyway, but she definitely wouldn't change my mind!

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It’s very specific. It’s an additional €6.5 billion to deliver over 100,00 public homes on public land. That’s the money budgeted to build the 100,000 homes unless the entirety of the existing housing budget and all it is used for is going to be diverted into building the “over 100,000 homes”.

How did you miss the 'additional' words first time SS, you led us that didn't read it up a blind alley on that one.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm in Mary Lou's area, had someone from sinn fein at my door today.
She hadn't a clue about any of the manifesto. Had no idea exactly what they would do or what they were proposing!
They wouldn't get my vote anyway, but she definitely wouldn't change my mind!

Yeah, difficult choices are never easy.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm in Mary Lou's area, had someone from sinn fein at my door today.
She hadn't a clue about any of the manifesto. Had no idea exactly what they would do or what they were proposing!
They wouldn't get my vote anyway, but she definitely wouldn't change my mind!

Might be of interest, but did you know that the leaders did very little canvassing today to be intensively briefed on their manifestos? They are quite bulky documents.
I'm sure it must have been fun at your front door as you questioned her about a document that is 110 pages long.

There's a few around here who had difficulty reading them properly as well

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How did you miss the 'additional' words first time SS, you led us that didn't read it up a blind alley on that one.

I will explain it to you again. The €6.5 billion is additional in order to build 100,000 homes.

The existing €6.5 billion, that’s €1.3 billion a year over 5 years is already busy doing all the other things that the existing housing budget does.

If you still don’t get it, I will type it out slower for you.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I will explain it to you again. The €6.5 billion is additional in order to build 100,000 homes.

The existing €6.5 billion, that’s €1.3 billion a year over 5 years is already busy doing all the other things that the existing housing budget does.

If you still don’t get it, I will type it out slower for you.

Yes I get that. That's for SF to answer.

Why did you misrepresent the figure given by SF originally?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes I get that. That's for SF to answer.

Why did you misrepresent the figure given by SF originally?

I didn’t misrepresent anything.

They intend to deliver over 100,00 new homes on public land by spending an additional €6.5 billion.

What’s hard to understand about that?

Do you think that all the existing demands on the housing budget will cease so it can be diverted to building the €65k houses?

Is that what your line is now?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I didn’t misrepresent anything.

They intend to deliver over 100,00 new homes on public land by spending an additional €6.5 billion.

What’s hard to understand about that?

Do you think that all the existing demands on the housing budget will cease so it can be diverted to building the €65k houses?

Is that what your line is now?

I don't know if it can be done, that is what you should be asking SF. Nobody seemed to think it important to ask tonight. Probably because all these manifestos are piffle and stuff and nonsense. The Dept seem to think they are all problematic with the exception of Labour's.

Don't start a new round of questions with a different slant now that you have been rumbled. It is fairly clear what you were doing. The figure you should have been using is the one that MLM said tonight to the satisfaction of her questioner because he moved on.

As maybe you should do and leave down the shovel.

neiphin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I didn’t misrepresent anything.

Don’t follow him down the rabbit hole

He’s trolling you

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know if it can be done, that is what you should be asking SF. Nobody seemed to think it important to ask tonight. Probably because all these manifestos are piffle and stuff and nonsense. The Dept seem to think they are all problematic with the exception of Labour's.

Don't start a new round of questions with a different slant now that you have been rumbled. It is fairly clear what you were doing. The figure you should have been using is the one that MLM said tonight to the satisfaction of her questioner because he moved on.

As maybe you should do and leave down the shovel.

Are you serious?

You think because the word “additional” is in the manifesto that the need for existing housing budget will disappear.

You are joking, right?

Did you look at the end of the manifesto where it says “additional capital measures” 100,000 homes - €6.5 billion.

jimmycrackcorm

SF, staying out of government in the North for three years over the ILA.
It just demonstrates the priorities they have. Certainly the ordinary voter isn't and why they have to promise so many goodies to try to buy votes.

Jinglejangle69

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

SF, staying out of government in the North for three years over the ILA.
It just demonstrates the priorities they have. Certainly the ordinary voter isn't and why they have to promise so many goodies to try to buy votes.

And then preach tonight that they know how to work with unionists and get things done better than any other party.

3 YEARS!!

And now convienently they can work with them 2 weeks before an election.

I'll give it 4 weeks and it's a shambles again.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are you serious?

You think because the word “additional” is in the manifesto that the need for existing housing budget will disappear.

You are joking, right?

Did you look at the end of the manifesto where it says “additional capital measures” 100,000 homes - €6.5 billion.

Yes I did.

And they are also adding 30 million to Climate Action etc

They are adding 6.5 to the spend TO BUILD 100,000 houses. That is what it says.

Whether it is right, wrong or indifferent, fiscally sound or wise, you had no right to change what they said to come up with a figure of 65.000 a house.

Pure misrepresentation if not an outright lie.